Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Kenny Foggo

Model / Plan

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

For me the key thing is ... stop repeating the failed strategy of the past whilst accepting that we won't sell out to a billionaire any time soon.

 

This means ...

1. Starting with an ethos / philosophy / style and only recruiting players and a head coach to suit that.

2. Aiming to always be greater than the sum of our parts (round pegs in round holes).

3. Never being too dependent on one player / a manager.

4. Investing in young talent and developing it at academy level and with excellent training facilities before selling them on for lucrative profit - for further investment.

5. Seeing THIS promotion as an unexpected free hit to clear the debts, tie down young talent (core assets) to good contracts, showcase this young talent and give top level experience to our head coach and players.

6. Being in a far stronger position next season to fight for promotion than following any other relegation and CRUCIALLY returning to the top tier able to spend more than this time round.

Like Burnley and WBA bouncing back and forth a wee bit before sticking for a sustained spell (are there any 'established' clubs lower than Wolves/Everton?).

 

This is long term planning to make us an established top club without the risk that foreign ownership brings.

I'm fascinated to watch it pan out and glad that we have a brave and intelligent club to be proud of but ... my fear is that (knowing the Championship as we all do!) bouncing back from relegation isn't ever a doddle - however smartly you plan for it ... it's a vipers' nest!

 

I suppose at worst we'll only end up back where we were pre Webber/Farke but in a far stronger financial position and with some fab memories.

Enjoy the ride!

Edited by Cantiaci Canary
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jaberry2 said:

We have just progressed a bit sooner than expected. The plan will always be to be a steady premiership outfit.

How do you work that out when the owners state they are happy and want city to be a top 26 position club. How many teams are there in the premiership!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the champions at getting promotion and instant relegation. Seems that’s enough for many on here but you’d think we would have worked out how to stop up by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, to be honest the buy / loan for low amounts has really not worked this summer. Webber maybe can do it at championship level but not proved at top flight yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2020 at 11:58, PurpleCanary said:

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but my understanding is as follows:

1) The club continues to invest in Colney - work there is not finished - to attract talented yougsters.

2) The scouting network looks for good young British talent but also has finding young overseas players as a priority (Brexit may interfere with this).

3) Promotion to the Premier League will not spark a spending splurge on high-wage players with long and expensive contracts, so relegation will not cripple the finances  as it threatened to last time. Instead the assumption is that a player or two or three will inevitably be sold, but the overall squad, bumped up with the next generation of talent, will survive, as will the style of play - arguably the main point of the sporting-director plan.

4) So there is consistency and organic growth in terms of the squad but also crucially with the finances (definitely keeping within FFP rules), giving the club the best chance of getting back to the PL, with the eventual aim that a gradual strengthening of the squad will enable it to get up and stay up. I doubt there is a specific timeframe on this.

In general the plan is very different to the course pursued last time we went up and got relegated. The first part of 3) has already happened, of course, and last summer's transfer business exemplified 2).

Just to add, I don't know whether the plan is best defined as medium-term or long-term, but what it definitely is not is short-term. Leaving aside this January window, unless there are major moves out, the first real signs of how it works - and whether it works - will not come until the summer, after relegation.

Then we will see how many players get sold and for what money, and how many prize assets stay. How much of the money received then gets spent on potential first-team players and how much earmarked for off-field projects. How many of last summer's acquisitions for the future move up to the first-team squad. How many new for-the-future acquisitions there are, and of what quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point, the bubble will burst and a couple of major clubs will go under. That will then likely spark a major movement on how clubs are run. I think at that point, we will see a re-balance of competitiveness. Clubs like ours will benefit more than most.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Starr said:

At some point, the bubble will burst and a couple of major clubs will go under. That will then likely spark a major movement on how clubs are run. I think at that point, we will see a re-balance of competitiveness. Clubs like ours will benefit more than most.

I would love to have some of what ever you are on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2020 at 19:50, Kenny Foggo said:

I think, to be honest the buy / loan for low amounts has really not worked this summer. Webber maybe can do it at championship level but not proved at top flight yet.

We're still suffering the fallout from past failures. We only managed to clear out the remaining dead wood this Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jobsworth Canary said:

I would love to have some of what ever you are on

What , intelligence?....you'd only waste it!!!:classic_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Starr said:

Happened in Italy.

In Italy you don't have Amazon, Sky, BT bidding billions for your product 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Starr said:

At some point, the bubble will burst and a couple of major clubs will go under. That will then likely spark a major movement on how clubs are run. I think at that point, we will see a re-balance of competitiveness. Clubs like ours will benefit more than most.

We were a james maddison sale away from being in a lot of trouble ourselves

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

In Italy you don't have Amazon, Sky, BT bidding billions for your product 

And also, decent-sized Serie A/B clubs can generally reform straight away in the fourth tier so for a club that's struggling financially, it's not a serious problem to fold and start again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2020 at 15:33, PurpleCanary said:

GPB, the real problem is that the FFP limit was changed from £13m a season to £39m over three. 

It’s a minor point, but the initial Championship FFP rules (which were actually introduced during our three season Premier League stint between 2011-14) were intended at the time to reduce allowable annual losses from £8m pa to £3m pa over the course of three seasons.

However, it immediately became apparent that a number of clubs were likely to smash the thresholds, so the Championship clubs agreed to increase the allowable losses to £39m pa over three seasons - to also coincide with the Premier League rolling three year review period.

Personally, I find it was remarkable that FFP, originally introduced with the sole purpose of bringing some element of financial control to the way clubs were behaving, was changed so they could actually behave far worse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2020 at 11:58, PurpleCanary said:

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but my understanding is as follows:

1) The club continues to invest in Colney - work there is not finished - to attract talented yougsters.

2) The scouting network looks for good young British talent but also has finding young overseas players as a priority (Brexit may interfere with this).

3) Promotion to the Premier League will not spark a spending splurge on high-wage players with long and expensive contracts, so relegation will not cripple the finances  as it threatened to last time. Instead the assumption is that a player or two or three will inevitably be sold, but the overall squad, bumped up with the next generation of talent, will survive, as will the style of play - arguably the main point of the sporting-director plan.

4) So there is consistency and organic growth in terms of the squad but also crucially with the finances (definitely keeping within FFP rules), giving the club the best chance of getting back to the PL, with the eventual aim that a gradual strengthening of the squad will enable it to get up and stay up. I doubt there is a specific timeframe on this.

In general the plan is very different to the course pursued last time we went up and got relegated. The first part of 3) has already happened, of course, and last summer's transfer business exemplified 2).

If we want any overseas players who can't speak English to a decent standard we will need to sign them in the next summer transfer window.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the board recognise their limitations and the truth is that money talks in modern football. Forget top 26 the reality is a desire  to get as high as possible without a change of ownership.

As recent seasons have shown the current budget and wage structure makes us a top half Championship side. We buy cheap, invest in youth and then sell high. When over-achieving on the budget in place (best case scenario) we get promoted to the top flight. When under-achieving on the budget in place (worst case scenario) we fall into the third tier but with enough money to come back strong. When neither over or under achieving we will be mid to top half championship side. 

If the club wishes to progress. (And last summer's transfer business suggests the board do not) then funds have to be found to push onto premiership level. This does not only mean hefty transfer budget but a doubling if not tripling of wages. And here is where we come unstuck. This year we just didn't bother- wise if the plan is to remain static as we are well placed next season. Hopeless if the aim was to take advantage of promotion. Nevertheless a much better strategy than the stupid decision (in the Naismith era) to go for a middle ground and hope to pay almost enough for not quite good enough players. This nearly bankrupted the club. 

How then to press on. The answer becomes obvious. It needs a change of ownership or a massive new revenue stream. I dont see that happening under the present owners who took over a club in a national era but now find themselves poor in a global market. Some fans are perfectly happy with this. Fair play but the risk is that other clubs do progress and we slide into lower champ territory or league one. What exactly does nephew Tom bring to the party? Others feel the time is ripe to take a risk and find new owners. Also risky. But the one reality in life is that nothing stays the same. 

At the moment I am enjoying the team and manager. I really want to see us build on them. But I fear the budget means the team will soon be dismantled and proceeds used to try and go again...the dice will be rolled. And on we go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

How then to press on. The answer becomes obvious. It needs a change of ownership or a massive new revenue stream. I dont see that happening under the present owners who took over a club in a national era but now find themselves poor in a global market. Some fans are perfectly happy with this. Fair play but the risk is that other clubs do progress and we slide into lower champ territory or league one. What exactly does nephew Tom bring to the party? Others feel the time is ripe to take a risk and find new owners. Also risky. But the one reality in life is that nothing stays the same. 

This type of assertion is repeated time and again. It is rather simplistic and usually made without genuine evidence on the prolonged  experiences of other clubs. The evidence suggests that very few clubs have had prolonged benefit, from external investors. What you are really asking for is a billionaire happy to give us tens and probably hundreds of millions over a prolonged period.

Not impossible perhaps, but we are far more likely to find someone who is likely to make our current situation far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

If we want any overseas players who can't speak English to a decent standard we will need to sign them in the next summer transfer window.

British Immigration rules will always have loopholes for people who earn the amount of money that footballers do. 
 

Brexit will probably mean that clubs can bring in more South American players than before - I understand that Norwich already have a scout dedicated to Brazil and Argentina in anticipation of these markets opening up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

British Immigration rules will always have loopholes for people who earn the amount of money that footballers do. 
 

Brexit will probably mean that clubs can bring in more South American players than before - I understand that Norwich already have a scout dedicated to Brazil and Argentina in anticipation of these markets opening up. 

Interesting- is this a relaxation of the work permit rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, king canary said:

is this a relaxation of the work permit rules? 

We don't have  the details yet, but a skills based system will replace EU freedom of movement. This is likely  to make immigration  from outside the EU easier. It is the skill level(measured by wage) which will be  the determining  factor rather than EU citizenship.

Having said that, after reading this I'm not so sure.

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/02/19/brexit-britains-new-immigration-system-how-many-points-do-you-need/

 

Edited by Badger
link added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a consortium of local businesses and businesses owned by people either living or having strong family ties to Norwich to buy into the club with a substantial investment. Perhaps get ex-Norwich players put in money, even only slightly-more-than nominal investments with committed promotion drive would get fans on board. Start a crowd-funding operation, which should be good for a couple million, with an explicit target, for example to invest into the youth operation. People love home-grown players.

Use most of the money to expand the stadium capacity substantially. Go for full Premier League tier stadium, 40K (expandable to even more), training facilities etc. Commit to the Premier League. I believe Norwich has - despite losing - acquired goodwill and reputation for playing unapologizingly attractive football, which helps develop the brand and drive more revenue with merchandizing. Use the connections with players to market to their home countries to drive international sales. Norwich has already smartly done this with Teemu Pukki and Finland. Granted it's a somewhat special case... 

Even popping up to PL every now and then will, with smart housekeeping, improve financial situation long term, which enable the club to at times take a big chance on a successful PL run. I reckon if Norwich stays up for 2nd PL season, it will STAY there if the stadium is big enough and the revenue justifies taking on a little debt.

But if we only spend the money on players, which might be attractive short term, we put our money in one (inherently riskier) basket than if we smartly diversify our investments into physical capital (stadium, facilities) and human capital (management, players). That's why I say get investors to buy in: Use the actual revenue for players and turn new capital into physical capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Upo said:

Get a consortium of local businesses and businesses owned by people either living or having strong family ties to Norwich to buy into the club with a substantial investment. Perhaps get ex-Norwich players put in money, even only slightly-more-than nominal investments with committed promotion drive would get fans on board. Start a crowd-funding operation, which should be good for a couple million, with an explicit target, for example to invest into the youth operation. People love home-grown players.

Use most of the money to expand the stadium capacity substantially. Go for full Premier League tier stadium, 40K (expandable to even more), training facilities etc. Commit to the Premier League. I believe Norwich has - despite losing - acquired goodwill and reputation for playing unapologizingly attractive football, which helps develop the brand and drive more revenue with merchandizing. Use the connections with players to market to their home countries to drive international sales. Norwich has already smartly done this with Teemu Pukki and Finland. Granted it's a somewhat special case... 

Even popping up to PL every now and then will, with smart housekeeping, improve financial situation long term, which enable the club to at times take a big chance on a successful PL run. I reckon if Norwich stays up for 2nd PL season, it will STAY there if the stadium is big enough and the revenue justifies taking on a little debt.

But if we only spend the money on players, which might be attractive short term, we put our money in one (inherently riskier) basket than if we smartly diversify our investments into physical capital (stadium, facilities) and human capital (management, players). That's why I say get investors to buy in: Use the actual revenue for players and turn new capital into physical capital.

So let's talk  some detail. How much money would you wish to see raised and how would it be spent. Would this be done by selling new shares or would it include buying out existing owners.

Would it be a one off investment, or an ongoing commitment to  subsidise the club. Should the club take on debt - if so how much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, king canary said:

Interesting- is this a relaxation of the work permit rules?

That seems to be where things are heading. No more work permits but limitations to the amount of non-homegrown players. It would match the system most European Leagues adopt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Badger:

Selling shares. I wouldn't want current owners out when we can't be sure who comes in. Their laissez-faire approach comes with limitations, but I firmly believe it is a long term competitive advantage for Norwich City. Adding in partners would help diversify ownership without risking bipolar disorder or neurotic twitches every time we risk switching league up or down.

It would be a one-time investment with a specific goal - expanding the stadium and other physical capital. That way you're not buying promises. You get something in return that hurts if it drops on your foot. The risk being the demand isn't there, which would make us stuck paying interest and commitment to higher upkeep costs, but I don't think it's a big risk frankly. In any case, in current environment you probably SHOULD take on some debt on long term fixed interest rates. Say 50% capital infusion, 50% debt. I don't know what the going rate for football club debt is, but given Norwich's financial security, conservative approach and depending on the share demand, it would probably be decently low.

How much does a stadium expansion cost these days? How much revenue is lost if you rent another stadium while Carrow road is expanded or simply played with half the stands? £50 million?

Edited by Upo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I think the board recognise their limitations and the truth is that money talks in modern football. Forget top 26 the reality is a desire  to get as high as possible without a change of ownership.

As recent seasons have shown the current budget and wage structure makes us a top half Championship side. We buy cheap, invest in youth and then sell high. When over-achieving on the budget in place (best case scenario) we get promoted to the top flight. When under-achieving on the budget in place (worst case scenario) we fall into the third tier but with enough money to come back strong. When neither over or under achieving we will be mid to top half championship side. 

If the club wishes to progress. (And last summer's transfer business suggests the board do not) then funds have to be found to push onto premiership level. This does not only mean hefty transfer budget but a doubling if not tripling of wages. And here is where we come unstuck. This year we just didn't bother- wise if the plan is to remain static as we are well placed next season. Hopeless if the aim was to take advantage of promotion. Nevertheless a much better strategy than the stupid decision (in the Naismith era) to go for a middle ground and hope to pay almost enough for not quite good enough players. This nearly bankrupted the club. 

How then to press on. The answer becomes obvious. It needs a change of ownership or a massive new revenue stream. I dont see that happening under the present owners who took over a club in a national era but now find themselves poor in a global market. Some fans are perfectly happy with this. Fair play but the risk is that other clubs do progress and we slide into lower champ territory or league one. What exactly does nephew Tom bring to the party? Others feel the time is ripe to take a risk and find new owners. Also risky. But the one reality in life is that nothing stays the same. 

At the moment I am enjoying the team and manager. I really want to see us build on them. But I fear the budget means the team will soon be dismantled and proceeds used to try and go again...the dice will be rolled. And on we go...

At last Bootsie! You've finally posted something I agree with

But what you neglect to say is that it's the truth for all bar the top 7 or 8 clubs in the land. And what you always seem incapable of understanding is that we out perform the vast majority of the rest.

So what's your explanation of this? I would say if our owners are more successful than the majority of richer owners then they must be better owners than the majority of richer owners. And if they achieve this with less money they must be far better owners than the vast majority of richer owners.   The only argument I've heard against that is that they've been lucky. Is that what you think? Continually lucky when the majority of richer owners are just unlucky? 

Consequently the logical way to improve what we have would be to increase our clubs money under the current model. Similar to what we did with the academy bond that got sooo much criticism on here. The alternative is to have blind faith in other peoples money. Something that is doomed to fail for the vast majority of clubs who do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I've got an idea: Auction some "home" game rights to other teams while demanding a substantial (say 10000 to 20000 depending on the stadium) allocation of seats to Norwich fans. Should be worth some millions, maybe a point here or there for Norwich.

Is that allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Upo said:
To Badger:

Selling shares. I wouldn't want current owners out when we can't be sure who comes in. Their laissez-faire approach comes with limitations, but I firmly believe it is a long term competitive advantage for Norwich City. Adding in partners would help diversify ownership without risking bipolar disorder or neurotic twitches every time we risk switching league up or down.

It would be a one-time investment with a specific goal - expanding the stadium and other physical capital. That way you're not buying promises. You get something in return that hurts if it drops on your foot. The risk being the demand isn't there, which would make us stuck paying interest and commitment to higher upkeep costs, but I don't think it's a big risk frankly. In any case, in current environment you probably SHOULD take on some debt on long term fixed interest rates. Say 50% capital infusion, 50% debt. I don't know what the going rate for football club debt is, but given Norwich's financial security, conservative approach and depending on the share demand, it would probably be decently low.

How much does a stadium expansion cost these days? How much revenue is lost if you rent another stadium while Carrow road is expanded or simply played with half the stands? £50 million?

Yes, that seems quite a sensible approach. If it were new capital to pay for fixed assets, I would be happy. Possibly naming rights to encourage investors - how about the Aviva Stadium? 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Consequently the logical way to improve what we have would be to increase our clubs money under the current model. Similar to what we did with the academy bond that got sooo much criticism on here. The alternative is to have blind faith in other peoples money. Something that is doomed to fail for the vast majority of clubs who do it.

And that is precisely what I would argue for. Keep an efficiently functioning model functioning efficiently.

Debt = You remain the master of your own fate, but if you're stupid or things turn seriously bad against you, you lose as much as your debtors require. You sell ownership = you dilute your power to influence your fate. But s**t hits the fan, you share the pain. No bank comes after you.

50/50, you diversify. If the basic idea is right, you're going to succeed in any case, except if sky falls in. But that's when fixed interest rates come into play, and shared pain. If things *really* go pancakes, your best bet is canned food, a gun and source of water and debt doesn't matter.

Keep ownership local and you've got everybody's interests aligned. That is the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I think the board recognise their limitations and the truth is that money talks in modern football. Forget top 26 the reality is a desire  to get as high as possible without a change of ownership.

As recent seasons have shown the current budget and wage structure makes us a top half Championship side. We buy cheap, invest in youth and then sell high. When over-achieving on the budget in place (best case scenario) we get promoted to the top flight. When under-achieving on the budget in place (worst case scenario) we fall into the third tier but with enough money to come back strong. When neither over or under achieving we will be mid to top half championship side. 

If the club wishes to progress. (And last summer's transfer business suggests the board do not) then funds have to be found to push onto premiership level. This does not only mean hefty transfer budget but a doubling if not tripling of wages. And here is where we come unstuck. This year we just didn't bother- wise if the plan is to remain static as we are well placed next season. Hopeless if the aim was to take advantage of promotion. Nevertheless a much better strategy than the stupid decision (in the Naismith era) to go for a middle ground and hope to pay almost enough for not quite good enough players. This nearly bankrupted the club. 

How then to press on. The answer becomes obvious. It needs a change of ownership or a massive new revenue stream. I dont see that happening under the present owners who took over a club in a national era but now find themselves poor in a global market. Some fans are perfectly happy with this. Fair play but the risk is that other clubs do progress and we slide into lower champ territory or league one. What exactly does nephew Tom bring to the party? Others feel the time is ripe to take a risk and find new owners. Also risky. But the one reality in life is that nothing stays the same. 

At the moment I am enjoying the team and manager. I really want to see us build on them. But I fear the budget means the team will soon be dismantled and proceeds used to try and go again...the dice will be rolled. And on we go...

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but I think that misunderstands the plan. The aim is not to repeat the last two seasons, and stay static, but to build, albeit more slowlyand safely than by trebling wages in the Premier League. 

So next season in the Championship we have enough good players if not to finish in the top two then at least to make the play-offs. If we go up then the purse strings will be loosened a bit more than they were this time, to give ourselves a better chance of staying up. But If we get relegated again then we will hope to go back up, but with even more financial backing, so eventually we stay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×